this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2026
454 points (99.8% liked)

Programmer Humor

29758 readers
1391 users here now

Welcome to Programmer Humor!

This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!

For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 49 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 140 points 1 day ago (2 children)

One way in which this could have come about is that Math.random wasn’t supported in all relevant browsers when the library author wrote the library. So they had to roll their own randomness with blackjack and hookers. Later the web standards evolved and the author was able to remove the custom code, but now had people relying on his library’s exposing a getRandom function.

[–] Billygoat@piefed.social 45 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You see this kind of stuff in C all the time when a code base supports multiple OSs by using macros.

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 27 points 1 day ago

Yes, though at least with C you have the compiler to optimize the cruft out of your binary and end up with a nice, clean program.

With JavaScript this is going to incur some runtime cost everywhere this library is used, even if it only happens once when getting optimized out by the JIT compiler.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Pretty sure that math.random is decades old.

[–] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 33 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Pretty sure OP’s image is hyperbole.

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

Right. I'd agree this is a thing that happens, I just thought you were addressing this one in particular

[–] meekah@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Pretty sure many codebases running today (even JS ones) are older

[–] Sv443@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 day ago (2 children)
[–] sparky@lemmy.federate.cc 1 points 23 hours ago

Remember IE? Yeah. Probably responsible for a lot of now-superfluous things like this theory suggests.

[–] meekah@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 day ago

Gotta admit, didn't think it was that old

[–] Ajen@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 day ago

How many JS codebases are over 30 years old? Can you name even one?

[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

And? I don't know how to check but I'd guess math.random was included from the beginning.

[–] rtxn@lemmy.world 73 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Considering how many websites were temporarily obliterated by the left-pad fiasco, being an npmjs maintainer might be an even higher power-to-effort ratio (by virtue of a near-zero denominator) than being a billionaire CEO.

[–] magikmw@piefed.social 1 points 13 hours ago

I still find it hilarious people think linking to some lib online on a live website makes sense. And people still do. Ehh.

[–] cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone 42 points 1 day ago (3 children)

i mean its still good to use an abstraction layer in case you ever have to change the underlying call; it's far easier to change it in one place instead of replacing every call

[–] Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Is this a joke?

If you need a different random function, you write a different random function either way. Having one function do nothing but call another function does nothing.

[–] loutr@sh.itjust.works 32 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There are several legit reasons why you'd do this. Unit tests, for example: override getRandom() with an implementation that always returns the same series of numbers, and now you have repeatable tests without touching the production code.

[–] WhiteRice@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Can you override Math.random within a local scope?

At my shop we do create generic covers for vendor specific functionality, for the reasons you stated. Though the practice was started in case we ever needed to swap vendors.

[–] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 11 points 1 day ago

You can, but you shouldn’t. You don’t know what else relies on Math.random. That’s why there’s the wrapper function. That you can override in unit tests without worrying about other, unrelated code.

[–] x1gma@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

It's not about a different function providing different randomness, but providing a compatible implementation for environments not supporting the "regular" implementation.

If this screenshot is legit, I guarantee you that either the library is older and there was some weird branching for IE or it's brand new and had branching for the hot new JS runtime / cross compiling.

Supporting a metric fuckton of browsers and environments takes the same amount of shims.

[–] RickyRigatoni@piefed.social 7 points 1 day ago

Just do a find and replace

[–] Hirom@beehaw.org 6 points 1 day ago
[–] Avicenna@programming.dev 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I can imagine multiple scenarios where this could be useful. Simplest is perhaps the coder imagined at the time they could extend the function in later stages.

[–] Jesus_666@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Then they could add their own function in later stages. YAGNI exists for a reason.

[–] Avicenna@programming.dev 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I think it is a balance. Despite having quite functional IDEs now a days, it is still more error prone to change 10 instances of math.random than a single function you define modularly. If you think there is a good chance such an extension might be needed in future or that you might want to change libraries later on, I wouldn't necessarily call this a bad decision, even if it goes unused.

YAGNI works best when it prevents adding complex unused futures which are error prone and complicates a simpler program logic and flow. In this case you are just encapsulating a function inside another one without any change to program complexity.

[–] Jesus_666@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

It definitely depends on the use case. I could accept this being abstracted out to facilitate mocking, for instance (although I'd recommend mocking at a higher level). But in general this wouldn't pass review with me unless I get a good explanation for why it's necessary.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 16 points 1 day ago

“You ain’t gonna need it”. It means: Build the thing you need now and don’t try to predict what you’ll need in 3 years. You ain’t gonna need it anyway.

[–] abbadon420@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I get that this is a joke, but would something like import Math.random as getRandom work better? Because that basically what you're doing here, renaming the function.

[–] sunnie@sopuli.xyz 21 points 1 day ago (2 children)

that's not really a thing in JS as Math isn't imported, it's just an object available globally. the closest you can get is like const { random: getRandom } = Mathbut that's just uglier.

the implication is that this function is exported from a library so they have to keep the function around - obviously in a modern project you'd just do Math.random()

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And that's only one of the many reasons that JavaScript is a clown language.

[–] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Which of these things, excactly? That Math just floats around in the global scope? Or that that destructuring assignment works? Or that the author chose to abstract around Math.random(). That has come very handy for me when testing.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Global scope.

Also that there's, after 35 years of webbrowsers, still no reliable way to match a domain without subdomain, except via string splitting.

[–] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I see your point regarding global scope. But personally, I’ve never encountered an issue with it. And it’s kinda nice not to have to import fetch every time you need it.

Regarding subdomains, if you’ll humor my curiosity: What’s the use case? I also wonder what an API for this might look like.

const {domain, subdomains, rootDomain} = new URL('https://wikipedia.org/')
//       'wikipedia.org', [], 'wikipedia.org'
const {domain, subdomains, rootDomain} = new URL('https://foo.bar.baz.net/')
//       'foo.bar.baz.net', ['foo.bar.baz.net', 'bar.baz.net'], 'baz.net'
[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

A userscript over links for debugging purposes, that should ignore links to the same domain (www.w3schools vs campus.w3schools vs www.youtube).

Btw, it's funny how support.mozilla and some standards-teaching-sites are some of the worst offenders of web standards.

Edit: how to stop this auto-linking?

[–] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

If I understand correctly, you want to check the current domain (eg. w3schools) against api.w3schools and www.youtube, and return true for the first and false for the second (or the other way around)

Then technically it’s possible without string splitting:

const href = 'retrieved-from-the-anchor-element';
(new URL(href, location.href).hostname).endsWith(location.hostname)
[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 2 points 15 hours ago

Edit: got it working yesterday evening. But with split().slice(-2). Thanks again.

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago

Well, the whole web is basically "let's go, make it work somehow". Thanks for your effort!

[–] dreamkeeper@literature.cafe 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Most scripting languages have a global scope of some kind. It's not that big of a deal.

I'd prefer not to have it, but it hasn't caused me problems in many years. Actually, the window object can be really useful in some situations so I'm not even sure about that.

[–] Bombastic@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 day ago

That code snippet isn't even one line and it's already unreadable to me

[–] dsilverz@calckey.world -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

@abbadon420@sh.itjust.works @not_IO@lemmy.blahaj.zone @programmer_humor@programming.dev

I didn't know about this specific syntax you mentioned (import foo.bar as baz; what I'm aware and I use frequently is something like e.g. const log = console.log.bind(console)), I'm not even sure if it works as all my import use cases involve something installed from NPM or a relative-folder module file.

But sometimes it's useful, and better, to have parametrized randomness, as in my helper functions I keep reusing across my personal projects:

export const rand = (n, x) => Math.random() * (x - n) + n
export const irand = (n, x) => Math.round(rand(n, x))
export const choose = a => a[irand(0, a.length-1)]

(yeah, my choose helper lacks a proper verification of the input parameter, will return undefined if the array is empty or is not an array, but, well, it's for personal projects so I don't really worry about that; also I've been using Ruby more than I use JS, and Ruby got beautifully native array.sample and Random.rand(a..b))

[–] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I think irand should floor instead of round. First, when you want to generate a random number between 0 and 6 it’s often useful to exclude the 6. (See also https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~EWD/transcriptions/EWD08xx/EWD831.html).

Second, irand(0, 6) has a higher chance of rolling a 1 than a 0 because the capture area for 1 is [.5, 1.5), while the capture area for 0 is only [0, .5)

Also if you had chosen any other variable names, it wouldn’t have taken me 5 minutes to figure out what these things do.

And one more, if you had swapped the input parameters, and defaulted to n=0, you could call the use case “random number up to 6” with just rand(6) instead of rand(0, 6).

None of that matters in a private project, but… it just itched to point these things out.

[–] dsilverz@calckey.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

@bleistift2@sopuli.xyz

Back when I coded that (it's been years), I opted for the shortest one-liners possible (I often catch myself doing one-liners and code-golfing for the fun of it), with "n" and "x" meaning respectively "miN" and "maX". Hence why I also do a call to rand inside the irand, so irand is as shortest as possible.

As for the bias towards the mid, it's by design, because ends up quite similar to the central limit theorem:

> Array.from(Array(10000), _=>irand(0,6)).reduce((p,v)=>({...p, [v]: (p[v]||0)+1}), {})
{
  '0': 840,
  '1': 1602,
  '2': 1658,
  '3': 1691,
  '4': 1684,
  '5': 1687,
  '6': 838
}

Notice how both extremities have lower values while the median (3) got the maximum value (1691). I wanted something behaving similarly to how noise often feels like in real world settings (e.g. SDR radio settings, never truly uniform), hence why the "maX" value is inclusive, it's purposefully meant to, just like the "miN" value is also inclusive, because they need to be inclusive so it gets to appear amidst the samples.

As a comparison, when I change it to trunc (because floor would behave differently for negative numbers), as in:

> irand = (n, x) => Math.trunc(rand(n, x))
[Function: irand]
> Array.from(Array(10000), _=>irand(0,6)).reduce((p,v)=>({...p, [v]: (p[v]||0)+1}), {})
{ '0': 1684, '1': 1659, '2': 1685, '3': 1668, '4': 1676, '5': 1628 }

...then the sample gets too annoyingly uniform, not even to say about how max (the 6) ends up missing from the samples (thus requiring a x+1 whenever the max value is intended to be inclusive). This may be the best distribution for certain scenarios where uniform randomness is expected, but this doesn't feel... natural.

That's also why I implemented this JS flavour in a personal Ruby gem (utils.rb) because Ruby got this annoyingly uniform distribution with its native Random.rand (again, useful sometimes, but not exactly natural):

irb(main):041:0> 10000.times.map{Random.rand(0..6)}.tally.sort{|a,b|a[0]<=>b[0]}.to_h
=> {0=>1431, 1=>1449, 2=>1395, 3=>1435, 4=>1411, 5=>1465, 6=>1414}
irb(main):042:0> def rand(n,x) = Kernel::rand()*(x-n)+n
=> :rand
irb(main):043:0> def irand(n,x) = rand(n,x).round
=> :irand
irb(main):044:0> 10000.times.map{irand(0,6)}.tally.sort{|a,b|a[0]<=>b[0]}.to_h
=> {0=>892, 1=>1612, 2=>1744, 3=>1643, 4=>1592, 5=>1708, 6=>809}

See how my Ruby's irand implementation behaves exactly as my JS's irand do: with this more natural bias towards the middle.

As for the possibility to do irand(x), because the use case often involves having a well-defined range instead of a maximum target value (minimum value isn't even always zero, but something arbitrary such as e.g. irand(65,65+25) for generating codepoints for alphabet letters), this is why it's not overloaded so to default n to zero.

[–] bleistift2@sopuli.xyz 3 points 1 day ago

Thanks for the write-up. Your use case is different from all I’ve ever had. It’s good to be reminded that my world view isn’t universal.

[–] fox2263@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

If only there was a way to put ads in the code. Think of the revenue!

[–] owenfromcanada@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Copilot - I see you're using a random function, would you like to buy this cool shirt whose designer used Math.random() to help make them all unique?

[–] brunchyvirus@fedia.io 4 points 1 day ago

Its a modernized version of Infinite monkey theorem but instead of typewriters and Shakespeare its importing libraries and Facebook.